Is There a Health Inequality in Gambling Related Harms? A Systematic Review

J.N Raybould, M Larkin, R. J Tunney
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/19012104

ABSTRACT

Objective Here we present a systematic review of the existing research into gambling harms, in order to determine whether there are differences in the presentation of these across demographic groups such as age, gender, culture, and socioeconomic status, or gambling behaviour categories such as risk severity and play frequency.

Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures Inclusion criteria were: 1) focus on gambling harms; 2) focus on harms to the gambler rather than affected others; 3) discussion of specific listed harms and not just harms in general terms. Exclusion criteria were: 1) not written in English; 2) not an empirical study (i.e. an editorial piece or letter); 3) not available as a full article.

Search A systematic search was conducted using the Web of Science database in August 2019. Selected studies were assessed for quality using Standard Quality Assessment Criteria.

Results Forty-Seven studies published between 2006 and 2019 met the inclusion criteria. These were categorised into thematic groups for comparison and discussion. There were replicated differences found in groups defined by age, risk severity and gambling behaviours. However, the majority of research regarding gender concluded that harm profiles were similar, or differences could be explained by confounding variables.

Conclusion Harms appear to be dependent on specific social, demographic and environmental conditions that suggests there is a health inequality in gambling related harms. Further investigation is required to develop standardised measurement tools and to understand confounding variables and co-morbidities. With a robust understanding of harms distribution in the population, Primary Care Workers will be better equipped to identify those who are at risk, or who are showing signs of Gambling Disorder, and to target prevention and intervention programmes appropriately.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years there has been an increase in gambling participation [1] and we predict that the harms resulting from gambling behaviour are not distributed evenly amongst the population. This would suggest that there is a health inequality that needs to be addressed, and therefore in conducting this review we aim to identify which individuals are most at risk, and how harms are likely to present in the general population before the point of clinical diagnosis.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V)[2] introduced Gambling Disorder as a behavioural addiction. This is the first behavioural addiction to be included in the DSM and the condition is an increasing public health concern [3], as new accessible methods of play such as online and mobile gambling have led to an increase in gambling behaviour. For diagnosis using the DSM-V an individual must experience harmful consequences from their behaviour, so understanding the potential harms resulting from gambling is more important than ever.

There have been a number of recent Systematic Reviews completed in the field of gambling, investigating a range of ideas such as the relationship between crime and gambling disorders [4, 5], quality of life measurement tools [6], comorbidity with other conditions [7], impulsivity in gambling [8, 9], or potential interventions and harm minimisation tools [10, 11, 12, 13]. Despite this body of research, and many individual studies investigating specific gambling harms, a systematic review of how harms are distributed across society hasn’t yet been done. Although many studies have investigated how harms can be minimised [14, 15, 16], a complete understanding of the disease and its impact on society is dependent on understanding how harms are distributed across the population. If our intuitions are correct then this poses a health inequality that needs to be addressed.

Harms related to gambling behaviour have been found to affect all types of individual, including low and moderate risk, or sub-clinical, gamblers [17, 18, 19]. The National Strategy to Reduce Gambling Harm [20] states “An effective prevention plan must seek to identify the right mix of interventions to be applied at both the population and individual level,” and so a thorough understanding of how an individual experiences harm would be beneficial in understanding gambling as a whole and developing effective interventions. It has been suggested that in order to develop effective tools for minimising harm agencies need to consider aggregate harm to individuals, rather than the estimated prevalence of problem gamblers [21]. Current estimates suggest that there are 2 million adults experiencing some level of harm from gambling [1] and a thorough understanding of how harms are presented within these individuals, and within at-risk groups, may help in identifying those at risk and targeting interventions where they are most needed.

Objective

To present a systematic review of the existing research into gambling harms, to determine whether there are differences in the presentation of these across demographic groups such as age, gender, culture, and socioeconomic status, or gambling behaviour categories such as risk severity and play frequency.

METHOD

Search Strategy

Studies that have explored specific harms and the prevalence of these within a population were identified using a search of records held by Web of Science[22]. The database was searched on 19th August 2019 using the following criteria; (TI= ((gambl* OR problem* gambl*) AND (harm* OR negative impact* OR adverse impact* OR detrimental impact* OR negative ?ffect OR adverse ?ffect OR detrimental ?ffect OR consequences)). This yielded 180 results. Initially the search was conducted within the abstracts of studies, however this yielded 2,283 results and the first two pages of these were not relevant to the review, so a second search was restricted to titles only. Search terms were selected using ‘thesaurus.com’[23] and the Oxford English Dictionary Online[24] to identify synonyms and the final criteria was developed through a trial and error process, using each synonym and a combination of Boolean terms until the most successful criteria were identified, in terms of number of studies returned, and relevance of studies returned.

Inclusion Criteria

Studies were included that discussed harms from gambling, discussed harms to the gambler, and discussed or listed a minimum of two identified harms rather than discussing harm minimisation or harms in general terms. For the purpose of this review a clinical diagnosis of Gambling Disorder, or an increased risk of diagnosis as shown by the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) or South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), was considered a gambling harm.

Exclusion Criteria

The 180 results were screened to identify duplicates, and results that were not empirical reports, or were short articles. Letters or editorial pieces were excluded along with any results not available in English. Studies that did not discuss specific harms, did not discuss gambling, only investigated harms to others rather than the gambler, or were not available as a full article were also excluded. This left a total of 47 studies of which 17 were qualitative, 28 were quantitative, and 2 were mixed methods.

Quality Evaluation

Studies were assessed for quality (Figure 1) using the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria [25]. This measures the quality of both quantitative and qualitative research using a series of standardised questions on the key requirements for quality research. Studies which followed a mixed methods approach were evaluated in terms of the most prominent research style. Studies were coded in Excel using the guidelines set out by Kmet, Lee and Cook and coloured using a traffic light system for reviewing.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Data Extraction Table

Data Analysis Plan

Study design, participant number, diagnostic measures, harms measures, groups analysed and funding source were extracted from the studies (Figure 2). The results which described harm distribution were then included and categories were identified for analysis. Studies were divided into these categories for comparison, with several studies providing results for multiple groups, and the results were summarised in brief.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Kmet, Lee and Cook (2004) Research Quality Checks

For the purpose of extracting relevant comparable data harms were defined using Langham et al’s[26] 73-Item checklist (Figure 3), which identifies 8 domains of harm (Table 1). Delfabbro and King[27] argue that certain items attributed as harms are incorrectly labelled, for example they suggest that chasing losses, gambling to obtain more excitement, or betting above affordable means, are behaviours which lead to harm and not the harms themselves. Schellinck et al[28] also argue that borrowing money is not a harm, but is in fact a predictor for the harms, debt and relationship conflict. For the purpose of this study however, the full proposed taxonomy of harms was analysed.

View this table:
Table 1.

Langham et al[26] Taxonomy of Harm Domains

Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Langham et al (2016) Taxonomy of Harms

A taxonomy of harms experienced by people who gamble

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Chart (PRISMA)[29]

The risk categories of gambling described by the PGSI and SOGS were also included as a gambling-related harm since the higher scores on these measures may predict risk of clinical diagnosis.

Patient and Public Involvement

There was no involvement from the general population or any individual with a Substance Addiction or Behavioural Addiction Disorder in this systematic review.

RESULTS

Search and Selection Results

The database search returned 180 papers for review and 4 of these were excluded as duplicates. Analysis of titles and abstracts led to a further 7 exclusions for not discussing gambling, and 25 exclusions for not discussing harms. The remaining 144 studies were reviewed in full, resulting in 30 studies being excluded for not being empirical reports, or because they were short articles, letters or editorial pieces. Studies discussing only harms to others resulted in 4 exclusions, 7 studies were unobtainable, and 11 studies were not available in English. During the full-text review studies previously thought to discuss harms were removed for briefly mentioning harm and not discussing specifics, this led to 45 more exclusions leaving 47 studies remaining for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Description of Included Studies

Of the 47 studies included in this review 13 used interviews, 4 used focus groups, 20 involved surveys and 11 conducted reviews. Of the 11 reviews 3 were systematic, and the remainder were narrative. Secondary data analysis was conducted in 11 of the studies, and 1 study used online forum analysis.

The most common funding bodies for this selection of studies were the Australian Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (8) and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (7). Colleges and Universities funded 3 studies, research councils and institutes funded 15, and 1 study was funded by Star City Casino in Sydney. Of the remaining 13 studies, 8 received no funding and 5 did not declare their funding status (Table 2).

View this table:
Table 2.

Brief Data Extraction

Risk Severity

Twelve studies include data on risk severity, which is the measure of behaviour that puts someone at risk of developing a problem with gambling or developing Gambling Disorder. Rintoul, Deblaquiere and Thomas[30] found that venues looked for signs of problem gambling behaviour such as ‘shouting at the machine or other people in the venue’, appearing depressed, being withdrawn or emotional, excessive sweating, extended play and continuing to gamble with the winnings. In 34 hours they observed these signs in all venues and concluded that risk factors for the behaviour included multiple machine use at one time and withdrawing money several times at the venue.

In academic research the risk of developing Gambling Disorder is most frequently measured using the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), a component of the Canadian Problem Gambling Index [31], which categorises an individual as low risk or non-problem (0 score), moderate risk (1-2 score), high risk (3-7 score), or a problem gambler (8+ score).Shannon, Anijoul and Blaszcynski[32] found that the PGSI reliably correlated with 48 indicators of harm. These harm indicators were compiled using data from a scoping literature review, clinical case notes in a treatment setting, and a cohort of seven specialist clinicians.

Many of the studies looking into risk severity are focused on gathering evidence of the Prevention Paradox. This describes a situation where the majority of cases of a disease come from a population at low or moderate risk of that disease. In the case of gambling this means the majority of harms are found within the low to moderate risk gamblers, and the minority is found within high risk or problem gamblers.

In one study the prevalence of harm across non-problem (PGSI), or non-pathological (SOGS), gamblers was twice that of problem gamblers in their participant sample [21] .Browne and Rockloff[18] found that only 10% of financial harms across the study population were in the problem gambling or pathological gambling groups, and that more than 50% of cases where someone sold their belongings to fund their gambling were in recreational or low risk gamblers. In contrast to this they found that more than 50% of social deviance harms are found within problem gamblers, and the remaining categories of harm were evenly distributed across the severity groups.

Evidence of the prevention paradox was found by several other studies [19, 33, 34], though it was also found that the highest severity harms were generally only found in the problem gambling groups, as defined by the PGSI. Skaal et al[35] found psychological distress was only associated with problem gambling and Lloyd et al[36] found that self-harm thoughts were associated with problem gambling. Rawat et al[19] found that problem gamblers show similar disability weights to those of Bipolar Disorder or alcohol dependence, whereas the low risk group show disability weights equal to moderate anxiety. Disability weights are a health-related measure of quality of life using a ratio scale between 0 and 1, representing ideal health and death. These estimates further suggest that although the majority of harms may be found in the lower risk groups, the more severe harms are only prevalent within problem gambling groups.

Li et al[37] found that selling personal items, absence from work or study, reduced performance, poor sleep and extreme distress had the highest correlation with PGSI categories. They also found that reduced spending on essential expenses, absence from work or study, feelings of worthlessness, increased relationship conflict, and feeling like an outcast were the most effective discriminators between the low and high-risk groups.

Shannon, Anijoul and Blaszcynski[32] found that across both a clinical and non-clinical sample the lowest reported harms were substance use, suicide, bankruptcy, and education problems. They found that the distribution of averaged harm scores was consistent across both samples, excluding reduced savings and decreased happiness, suggesting that psychological and financial harms are the most significant. The most common gambling harms found represented negative impacts on general quality of life and psychological well-being, however the mean level of harm for the 15 most common indicators in the community sample was less than one empirically defined unit.

Despite these results there has been some criticism of the PGSI as a measure of gambling behaviour. The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation[38] categorises the PGSI groups as non-problem gambling, low risk, moderate risk and problem gambling, which is distinctly different to the categories used in these studies. Delfabbro and King[39] argued that harms cannot be confidently attributed to gambling in the low risk group, as some studies consider individuals who score a 0 on the PGSI as low risk, rather than no risk. They also argue that harms are not appropriately scaled, citing that “suicide is not equal to shame,” and that when controlling for severity low risk categories show very few harms. However, they did find that in financial harm categories the items they considered as more severe, such as selling belongings, were present in the low risk groups. This may be due to the less affluent socioeconomic status of the low risk category, and that it is hard to confidently attribute these financial harms to gambling.

Age

Eighteen studies include data on age, and several of these found that being younger was associated with a higher risk of experiencing gambling harms [40, 41, 42, 43, 33, 44]. In particular one study found that younger age groups (16-34) were at risk of dependence and social harms [45], however some studies found younger gamblers were less at risk of financial harms [46, 47], despite one suggesting that they spent more [48]. Ferrara, Franceschini and Corsello[43] found that as well as higher rates of what they label “problematic gambling”, younger age groups showed a higher comorbidity with other addictions. However, Larsen, Curtis and Bjerregaard[49] found that alcohol use increased with age in lifetime problem gamblers, as defined by the DSM-IV criteria for ‘pathological gambling’, in opposition to the trend seen in a general population.

Two studies found that age had no impact on harm profiles [21, 34], and Lloyd et al[36] found no association between age and gambling-induced thoughts of self-harm. Pitt et al[46] found that children aged 8-16 showed little or no current harms as they were gambling at home with their families, spending small amounts of pocket money, or betting with activities such as push-ups against family members.

Despite the apparent absence of harms in the youngest age groups children developed false beliefs around gambling, such as that skill can be used to win, or that it is necessary for everyone to try gambling at least once. Children were also found to understand how gambling could gain them money. In Breen[50] it was found that youth who were exposed to gambling at a young age were more likely to gamble later in life to increase their income, and that youth who missed school had reduced lifelong aspirations and reduced opportunities.

Further research is needed to understand the distribution of harms across age groups as it was found by Estevez et al[51] that sensation seeking and impulsivity were high in young gamblers. Anxiety, depression and psychoticism were partially mediated by impulsivity, and somatisation, obsessive-compulsive behaviour, interpersonal sensitivity, paranoid ideation and hostility were perfectly mediated. Hubert and Griffiths[52] found that online gamblers are more likely to be younger, and Bergh and Kuhlhorn[53] found that individuals aged 20-34 gambled for almost twice as long per session compared to participants over 35. Breen, Hing and Gordon[48] discovered that younger gamblers preferred to play poker or other card games, while Ferrara, Franceschini and Corsello[43] found that younger gamblers were more likely to be sports bettors. These additional variables could explain some of the variance in harm presentation and help to target appropriate interventions, as Ferrara, Franceschini and Corsello[43] found that 0.2-12.3% of adolescents in their study met the criteria for a diagnosis of Gambling Disorder depending upon country of residence.

Gender

Fifteen studies examined gender, and few of these found any evidence that harms affected men and women differently [53, 21, 40, 41]. Where differences were found these could be explained by other factors, such as studies that show men have a higher prevalence of harms than women [42, 43, 54], being explained by men gambling more frequently than women and spending more money when gambling [45, 47, 55]. Raisamo et al[33] in particular found that although the prevalence of harms was higher in males, when controlling for frequency of play and amount spent gender was no longer a significant factor. Moreover, Splevins et al[56] found that men started gambling earlier than women and found it more exciting. This led to increased spending and therefore an increased risk of harms such as substance use and interpersonal conflicts.

Despite this some studies have suggested key differences in how gambling harms present between genders. In Singapore, Goh, Ng and Yeoh[57] reported that “tentative evidence… points to the risk of child neglect when the problem gambler is the mother.” They also found that verbal abuse was most commonly displayed by males towards their mothers, but no difference was found in cases of physical abuse between genders. McCarthy et al[58] found that women were more likely to report mental health comorbidity than males, however causality is not discussed.

One key study which found an opposing result was Salonen, Alho and Castren[59] who found that while gambling was more common in young males, women displayed an increase in specific harms between 2011 and 2015 where men did not. This particular study also looked at attitudes towards gambling and found that while female attitudes were generally negative over the age of 25, male attitudes were generally positive for all but the 15-17 age range. As the study used self-report survey data these differences in attitude could have impacted how individuals reported harms.

Culture

Ten studies include data on culture, and these are largely focused on investigating only one group, or comparing indigenous people with migrants to a society. Although direct comparison is not possible given the majority of studies found within this search some estimates, and inferences can be made.

Kolandai-Matchett et al[60] found that Pacific New Zealand people experienced gambling through collectivist cultural values, meaning that additional harm dimensions were present. Some of the listed cultural harms include a loss of belonging or isolation, shame; loss of the community’s respect; disruption of trusting relationships; transference of communal responsibilities; and an overall loss of social cohesion. In a quotation from one of the interviewed participants the researchers noted that non-present or non-contributing members of the society may be excluded by the wider collective.

Breen[50] studied indigenous Australians and found that one key harm was the neglect of children when a parent gambles, and the eldest daughter would become their main care giver. They also found that many people would gamble within a group, increasing their behaviour, but they would feel shame from losses and from the potential gossip within their close community, and Breen, Hing and Gordon[48] also found that a large concern for Indigenous Australians was the spread of a harms impact throughout the community. The range of harms shown within indigenous Australian communities included gambling away their pensions, relationship issues [48], betting above their means, guilt and shame, and chasing losses [62]. And to a lesser extent financial harms like borrowing money or selling items, and health problems.

McCarthy et al[58] suggested that women from ethnic minorities, indigenous communities and specifically Maori and Pacific women in New Zealand were more vulnerable to gambling harms than European women. Ferrara, Franceschini and Corsello[43] found that non-white males were most at risk of developing a gambling problem, and, in the UK, Wardle et al[61] found that although migrants were less likely to gamble they were more likely to experience harms than individuals born in the country. By contrast, Currie et al[42] found that white men were more likely to report harms, and are more likely to gamble overall, with a higher frequency and higher spends.

The final study that investigated culture is that of Goh, Ng and Yeoh[57] who found that families in Singapore were at risk of acute financial harms when the problem gambler was a parent. Most households suffered double financial harms through loss of income and large debt, and when the gambler was a mother without income the father would leave employment to care for the children, resulting in an income reduction for the entire household. Goh, Ng and Yeoh also found that many people in Singapore viewed gamblers as self-centred, and siblings would often give up on them, rather than accepting problem gambling as an illness.

Gambling Behaviour

One of the most predictable influences on gambling harms is the specific gambling habits and behaviours of the individual. Twelve studies include data on gambling behaviours and several studies have agreed that a higher frequency of play, and higher amount of spending per session, leads to more harms [45, 41, 42, 47, 33, 63].

Some studies have found links between the quantity of harms and the choice of game type. Castren et al[41] found that six out of twelve game type predictors were associated with more harmful consequences, including scratch games, betting, slot machines, non-poker online games, online poker, and non-monopoly games. They found that lottery play caused the lowest number of harms, and this finding is consistent with findings reported by Currie et al[42] who found that frequency of play on lottery games did not increase the harms experienced, whereas electronic gambling machines, ticket gambling, bingo and casino games did. Ronzitti et al[44] also concluded that Fixed Odds Betting Terminals and casino tables were associated with the highest scores on the PGSI, and gambling machines showed high PGSI scores compared to other methods of play, despite similar play times.

Two studies within the search looked at motivations for gambling, and although Browne et al[40] found no link between motivation of play and harms, Lee, Chung and Bernhard[55] found that excitement, escape and challenge motives were linked with positive outcomes, but financial motivation led to harms. Lloyd et al[36] also found that self-harm thoughts were associated with money as a motivator but was negatively associated with enjoyment motivations.

Online vs. Offline Gambling

As well as specific game type five studies look at the broader categories of online or offline gambling. Castren et al[41] found only a weak link between online gambling and an increase in harms, however Gainsbury, Abarbanel and Blaszcynski[14] found that online gamblers tended to have higher PGSI scores. Moreover, online gamblers were more varied in their choice of game and gambling behaviours, and in comparison to offline gamblers they showed no preference for skill-based games.

Yani-de-Soriano, Javed and Yousafzai[64] found that online gambling was associated with binge drinking, cigarette smoking and an increased risk of developing problem gambling. However, they did not find a link between online gambling and what they label as internet addiction. Huberts and Griffiths[52] also found a link between online gambling and alcohol dependence, and they discovered that online gamblers were less likely to have jobs, children and a stable relationship, leading to unemployment and less money later in life. They further found that online gamblers were less able to control impulsivity and frustration, but despite this they had fewer suicidal thoughts than offline gamblers, although actual suicide attempts were comparable in both groups.

Feelings of shame appeared to be lower in online gamblers relative to offline gamblers [65], and it was suggested that online gamblers feel less judged since their behaviours could be more secretive and private. Despite these reduced feelings of shame Fulton observed that secretive gambling increased financial harms due to the likelihood of concealed debt; and by living a double life secretive gamblers experienced increased stress, relationship conflicts, and emotional deterioration.

Socioeconomic Status

There were eight studies that examined socioeconomic factors affecting gambling harms, and the consensus appears to be that less affluent socioeconomic groups are more at risk of experiencing harms than more affluent groups. Ferrara, Franceschini and Corsello[43] found that individuals in routine socioeconomic groups were at the highest risk of developing an addiction to gambling, and Currie et al[42] concluded that participants who reported harms were more likely to be in a lower income bracket, and to have received no further education than high school.

Skaal et al[35] reported that urban residents were more likely to report psychological distress and be at a high risk of problem gambling on the PGSI. In comparison harms were associated with employment status in peri-urban areas, with unemployment doubling the risk of problem gambling. Browne et al[40] found that income and education level are indirect risk factors of harm, and Lloyd et al[36] found that gambling related thoughts of self-harm were more prevalent in the unemployed.

Lee, Chung and Bernhard[55] reported that married people with a low income are more likely to be financially motivated to gamble, and this motivation could be associated with greater harms. Lloyd et al[36], however, found no link between problem gambling and marital status.

In an apparent contrast with other results, Tu, Gray and Walton[66] found that people in managerial or professional occupations appeared more likely to participate in gambling than people in routine occupations. However, although gambling rates in the most affluent groups dropped during times of recession, the rates within deprived communities did not, suggesting that less wealthy people may be more likely to gamble in times of economic stress. When controlling for confounding variables the most deprived groups were 4.5 times as likely to experience a gambling-related argument or money issues as people living in the least deprived areas.

Other Factors

Studies that examined unique factors affecting harms include Jeffrey et al[67] who compared gamblers with their partners and found that gamblers were more likely to report individual harms that affect themselves. They also found that gamblers identified a wider range of harms and were better at identifying harms than their partners. This suggests that as well as experiencing more harms than affected others, gamblers are more aware of those harms and therefore may be more consciously impacted. Li et al[37] also found that harms in all areas accumulated more quickly in gamblers than in affected others.

Langham et al[68] found that an individuals’ sense of coherence correlated strongly with gambling harms. Sense of coherence is defined as the extent to which someone feels confident in the predictability of their environment, and that things will generally turn out as expected.

Binde[69] looked specifically at harms in the context of an individual’s place of work and found that signs of a problem gambler at work included excessive talk on gambling, gambling during breaks or during work time, borrowing money from colleagues, poor work performance, lateness or absence and more. Despite this they did not compare different levels of employment or types of job role that could have provided a more thorough view of gambling harms and employment.

May-Chahal et al[70] investigated harms within the British prison population and found that although the prevalence of problem gambling in terms of the PGSI was higher in prisons, the prevalence of gambling behaviour prior to incarceration was significantly lower. They found that there was no link between PGSI score and criminal career, and no statistical link between gambling and drug use, however high rate offenders in their mid-20s were 5.3 times more likely to be frequent loss chasers than other categories. May-Chahal also found that occasional gamblers were less likely to use alcohol or drugs in prison, with nearly 2/3 of the problem gambling group abstaining completely from substance use. The researchers suggest that this may be because the individuals’ ‘addiction needs’ are being met by their gambling behaviour.

Three studies also looked at how gambling harms present within a family unit, or how an individuals’ home life may impact their gambling. Anderson, Rempusheski and Leedy[71] examined senior family members and found that co-dependency within the family, where each person was expected to bail the other out, caused relationship breakdowns, stress and tension. Some participants expressed shame at spending their children’s trust funds or savings, however participants also reported using the addiction model to neutralize shame and guilt. Ferrara, Franceschini and Corsello[43] and Larsen, Curtis and Bjerregaard[49] both found that an individuals’ home life affected their gambling habits. Ferrara, Franceschini and Corsello stated that having separated parents increased the risk of gambling later in life, and Larsen, Curtis and Bjerregaard found that the odds of showing one or more addictive behaviours increased in households without children. Perhaps suggesting that the presence of a traditional nuclear family unit is a protective factor against gambling harms.

DISCUSSION

The results presented here suggest that there may be a health inequality in gambling harms, as several studies have found differences in the number and types of harms reported in different social groups. Although further analysis and investigation is necessary for a complete understanding of the distribution of gambling harms in society, the results suggest that there are differences which are dependent upon several factors. Studies such as Wardle et al[61], Salonen, Alho and Castren[59] and Tu, Gray and Walton[66] pose a particular concern as there are suggestions that certain groups experience more harms even when gambling less, presenting a health inequality which needs to be understood and addressed. In particular several studies report differences between age groups, socioeconomic status, and gambling behaviour or play styles.

In applying the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria [25] we found that several studies were not robust in their quality control (Figure 2). In particular studies scoring below 0.5 on the assessment may not be an accurate representation of gambling harms, whereas studies which scored above 0.95 may present the most reliable data on harm distribution (Table 3).

View this table:
Table 3.

Highest and Lowest Quality Assessment Scores Using Kmet, Lee and Cook[25]

The most commonly reported factor in these highly rated studies was the prevention paradox, and all studies included which discuss this found evidence in favour of the paradox. The findings showed that the majority of harm impact is found in the lower PGSI rated groups, due to the larger population numbers in these categories. However, they also found that the highest severity of harm, such as substance use or severe psychological distress, was most often found in the problem gambling group.

All but one [59] of these high rated studies found no differences in harm presentation between genders and reported that in all age groups males gambled more often than females with higher frequency of play and higher spends. In contrast Salonen, Alho and Castren found that occasional gambling increased in women 18-24 between the years 2011 and 2015, and only females felt more harms despite men 18-24 also increasing their gambling behaviour. Any other differences in harm profile between genders has been explained by behavioural differences as the odds of reporting harm increased substantially with greater time of play and spends, and daily gamblers were significantly more likely to report all different harms when compared to other gambling groups.

All but two studies [21, 36] investigating age found significant differences across groups, with the majority of harms and dysfunctional symptomology reported in ages below 30.

Online gamblers were found to be more frequently 16-20 years old and online gambling was highly associated with heavy alcohol use, and poor academic functioning.

It was also found that gambling related thoughts of self-harm were more common among the unemployed, and that individuals from urban areas were more likely to report psychological distress and increased alcohol use from gambling. In peri-urban areas employment status was associated with high scores on the PGSI and unemployed gamblers had double the odds of scoring as a problem gambler than those who were employed.

Several of these highly rated studies identified trait impulsivity as a common risk factor in gambling, and it was found that impulsivity mediated the link between harms and age or gender. Sense of coherence was also found to significantly correlate with gambling harms, with a weaker sense of coherence leading to increased harms. Along with impulsivity, sense of coherence could point to a personality type which increases the risk of harms from gambling. And evidence has shown that impulsivity is high in younger age groups, who appear to display more gambling harms than older individuals.

The final high rated study [55] found that motivations of excitement, escape and challenge were linked to positive outcomes from gambling, whereas money as a motivator led to harmful consequences. Despite this another highly rated study [40] found that an individual’s reason to gamble, or motivation, had no impact on harms and so further research is needed to confirm or deny this association.

It was stated by Susana Jiménez Murcia that, “we need to use different treatments for each sub-group of pathological gamblers” [70]. Murcia is the co-author of a study which found that there are four distinct types of gambler [71]. The team concluded that out of the four sub-types only one category of gambler suggested significant pathology, though all were compulsive with differing severity levels, comorbidity and personality profiles. Future research could investigate not only the distribution of harms across society, but also further understand these sub-types of gambler, attribute these to specific groups or personality profiles, and compare and validate the results against this previous work. This future research should also broaden the participant base as Álvarez-Moya et al only investigated self-reporting slot machine gamblers, meaning their results may not be complete, or may not be generalizable.

To conclude, our review strongly suggests that the distribution of harms in the population is affected by a number of factors and presents some key signs to identify individuals who may be at risk. However, further research is needed to fully understand gambling harms and to confirm which individuals and groups are most at risk.

Data Availability

Data is publicly available on Web of Science

Competing Interests

The authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this work

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Gambling Commission. Gambling Participation in 2018 Behaviour Awareness and Attitudes. 2019; [Available from: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/survey-data/Gambling-participation-in-2018-behaviour-awareness-and-attitudes.pdf
  2. 2.↵
    American Psychiatric Association. 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Pub.; 2013.
  3. 3.↵
    Gambling Commission. Gambling-related harm as a public health issue. Briefing paper for Local Authorities and local Public Health providers. February 2018; [Available from: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/Gambling-related-harm-as-a-public-health-issue.pdf
  4. 4.↵
    Adolphe A, Khatib L, van Golde C, Gainsbury SM, Blaszczynski A. Crime and Gambling Disorders: A Systematic Review. J Gambl Stud. 2019;35(2):395–414.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    Banks J, Waters J, Andersson C, Olive V. Prevalence of Gambling Disorder Among Prisoners: A Systematic Review. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2019:306624X19862430.
  6. 6.↵
    Bonfils NA, Aubin HJ, Benyamina A, Limosin F, Luquiens A. Quality of life instruments used in problem gambling studies: A systematic review and a meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019;104:58–72.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    Marchetti D, Verrocchio MC, Porcelli P. Gambling Problems and Alexithymia: A Systematic Review. Brain Sci. 2019;9(8).
  8. 8.↵
    Ioannidis K, Hook R, Wickham K, Grant JE, Chamberlain SR. Impulsivity in Gambling Disorder and problem gambling: a meta-analysis. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2019;44(8):1354–61.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    Lee RSC, Hoppenbrouwers S, Franken I. A Systematic Meta-Review of Impulsivity and Compulsivity in Addictive Behaviors. Neuropsychol Rev. 2019;29(1):14–26.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    Quilty LC, Wardell JD, Thiruchselvam T, Keough MT, Hendershot CS. Brief interventions for problem gambling: A meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):e0214502.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    Maynard BR, Wilson AN, Labuzienski E, Whiting SW. Mindfulness-Based Approaches in the Treatment of Disordered Gambling. Research on Social Work Practice. 2015;28(3):348–62.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    Pickering D, Keen B, Entwistle G, Blaszczynski A. Measuring treatment outcomes in gambling disorders: a systematic review. Addiction. 2018;113(3):411–26.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Tanner J, Drawson AS, Mushquash CJ, Mushquash AR, Mazmanian D. Harm reduction in gambling: A systematic review of industry strategies. Addiction Research & Theory. 2017;25(6):485–94.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    Hing N, Russell AMT, Hronis A. A definition and set of principles for responsible consumption of gambling. International Gambling Studies. 2017:1–24.
  15. 15.↵
    Gainsbury SM, Abarbanel B, Blaszczynski A. Game On: Comparison of Demographic Profiles, Consumption Behaviors, and Gambling Site Selection Criteria of Esports and Sports Bettors. Gaming Law Review. 2017;21(8):575–87.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    Harris A, Parke A, Griffiths MD. The Case for Using Personally Relevant and Emotionally Stimulating Gambling Messages as a Gambling Harm-Minimisation Strategy. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2018;16(2):266–75.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    Shaffer HJ, LaPlante DA, LaBrie RA, Kidman RC, Donato AN, Stanton MV. Toward a syndrome model of addiction: multiple expressions, common etiology. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2004;12(6):367–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    Browne M, Rockloff MJ. Prevalence of gambling-related harm provides evidence for the prevention paradox. J Behav Addict. 2018;7(2):410–22.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    Rawat V, Greer N, Langham E, Rockloff M, Hanley C. What is the harm? Applying a public health methodology to measure the impact of gambling problems and harm on quality of life. Journal of Gambling Issues. 2017(36).
  20. 20.↵
    Gambling Commission. Prevention and Education. National Strategies to Reduce Gambling Harm. 2019; [Available from: https://www.reducinggamblingharms.org/prevention-and-education.
  21. 21.↵
    Browne M, Goodwin BC, Rockloff MJ. Validation of the Short Gambling Harm Screen (SGHS): A Tool for Assessment of Harms from Gambling. J Gambl Stud. 2018;34(2):499–512.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    Web of Science. login.webofknowledge.com. (n.d.). [Retrieved: August 2019, from https://login.webofknowledge.com/.
  23. 23.↵
    Thesaurus. com. The world’s favorite online thesaurus! (n.d.). [Retrieved August 22, 2019, from: https://www.thesaurus.com/.
  24. 24.↵
    Oxford University Press. Oxford English Dictionary. 2010; (Online 2015 ed. Vol. 3).
  25. 25.↵
    Kmet, L.M., Lee, R.C., Cook, L.S. Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields. Edmonton: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR), HTA Initiative #13. 2004; 2.
  26. 26.↵
    Langham E, Thorne H, Browne M, Donaldson P, Rose J, Rockloff M. Understanding gambling related harm: a proposed definition, conceptual framework, and taxonomy of harms. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:80.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    Delfabbro P, King DL. Prevention paradox logic and problem gambling: Does low-risk gambling impose a greater burden of harm than high-risk gambling? J Behav Addict. 2017;6(2):163–7.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    Schellinck T, Schrans T, Schellinck H, Bliemel M. Construct Development for the FocaL Adult Gambling Screen (FLAGS): A Risk Measurement for Gambling Harm and Problem Gambling Associated with Electronic Gambling Machines. Journal of Gambling Issues. 2015(30):140.
  29. 29.↵
    PLoS Medicine (OPEN ACCESS) Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7): e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Rintoul A, Deblaquiere J, Thomas A. Responsible gambling codes of conduct: lack of harm minimisation intervention in the context of venue self-regulation. Addiction Research & Theory. 2017;25(6):451–61.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    Ferris, J., Wynne, H. The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: Final Report. The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA). 2001.
  32. 32.↵
    Shannon K, Anjoul F, Blaszczynski A. Mapping the proportional distribution of gambling-related harms in a clinical and community sample. International Gambling Studies. 2017;17(3):366–85.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Raisamo SU, Makela P, Salonen AH, Lintonen TP. The extent and distribution of gambling harm in Finland as assessed by the Problem Gambling Severity Index. Eur J Public Health. 2015;25(4):716–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    Salonen AH, Hellman M, Latvala T, Castren S. Gambling participation, gambling habits, gambling-related harm, and opinions on gambling advertising in Finland in 2016 Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2018;35(3):215–34.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    Skaal L, Sinclair H, Stein DJ, Myers B. Problem Gambling Among Urban and Rural Gamblers in Limpopo Province, South Africa: Associations with Hazardous and Harmful Alcohol Use and Psychological Distress. J Gambl Stud. 2016;32(1):217–30.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    Lloyd J, Hawton K, Dutton WH, Geddes JR, Goodwin GM, Rogers RD. Thoughts and acts of self-harm, and suicidal ideation, in online gamblers. International Gambling Studies. 2016;16(3):408–23.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    Li E, Browne M, Rawat V, Langham E, Rockloff M. Breaking Bad: Comparing Gambling Harms Among Gamblers and Affected Others. J Gambl Stud. 2017;33(1):223–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). [Retrieved October 2019, from: https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/for-professionals/health-and-community-professionals/problem-gambling-severity-index-pgsi/. 2019.
  39. 39.↵
    Delfabbro P, King DL. Challenges in the Conceptualisation and Measurement of Gambling-Related Harm. J Gambl Stud. 2019;35(3):743–55.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    Browne M, Hing N, Rockloff M, Russell AMT, Greer N, Nicoll F, et al. A Multivariate Evaluation of 25 Proximal and Distal Risk-Factors for Gambling-Related Harm. J Clin Med. 2019;8(4).
  41. 41.↵
    Castrén S, Perhoniemi R, Kontto J, Alho H, Salonen AH. Association between gambling harms and game types: Finnish population study. International Gambling Studies. 2017;18(1):124–42.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    Currie SR, Hodgins DC, Wang J, el-Guebaly N, Wynne H, Chen S. Risk of harm among gamblers in the general population as a function of level of participation in gambling activities. Addiction. 2006;101(4):570–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. 43.↵
    Ferrara P, Franceschini G, Corsello G. Gambling disorder in adolescents: what do we know about this social problem and its consequences? Ital J Pediatr. 2018;44(1):146.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    Ronzitti S, Soldini E, Lutri V, Smith N, Clerici M, Bowden-Jones H. Types of gambling and levels of harm: A UK study to assess severity of presentation in a treatment-seeking population. J Behav Addict. 2016;5(3):439–47.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    Canale N, Vieno A, Griffiths MD. The Extent and Distribution of Gambling-Related Harms and the Prevention Paradox in a British Population Survey. J Behav Addict. 2016;5(2):204–12.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    Pitt H, Thomas SL, Bestman A, Daube M, Derevensky J. Factors that influence children’s gambling attitudes and consumption intentions: lessons for gambling harm prevention research, policies and advocacy strategies. Harm Reduct J. 2017;14(1):11.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    Raisamo S, Halme J, Murto A, Lintonen T. Gambling-related harms among adolescents: a population-based study. J Gambl Stud. 2013;29(1):151–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    Breen HM, Hing N, Gordon A. Indigenous Gambling Motivations, Behaviour and Consequences in Northern New South Wales, Australia. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. 2010;9(6):723–39.
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    Larsen CV, Curtis T, Bjerregaard P. Harmful alcohol use and frequent use of marijuana among lifetime problem gamblers and the prevalence of cross-addictive behaviour among Greenland Inuit: evidence from the cross-sectional Inuit Health in Transition Greenland survey 2006-2010. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2013;72:19551.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    Breen HM. Risk and Protective Factors Associated with Gambling Consequences for Indigenous Australians in North Queensland. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. 2011;10(2):258–72.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    Estevez A, Herrero-Fernandez D, Sarabia I, Jauregui P. The impulsivity and sensation-seeking mediators of the psychological consequences of pathological gambling in adolescence. J Gambl Stud. 2015;31(1):91–103.
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    Hubert P, Griffiths MD. A Comparison of Online Versus Offline Gambling Harm in Portuguese Pathological Gamblers: An Empirical Study. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2018;16(5):1219–37.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    Bergh C, Kuhlhorn E. Social, psychological and physical consequences of pathological gambling in Sweden. Journal of gambling studies. 1994;10(3):275–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    Ricijas N, Dodig Hundric D, Huic A. Predictors of adverse gambling related consequences among adolescent boys. Children and Youth Services Review. 2016;67:168–76.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    Lee CK, Chung N, Bernhard BJ. Examining the structural relationships among gambling motivation, passion, and consequences of internet sports betting. J Gambl Stud. 2014;30(4):845–58.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    Splevins K, Mireskandari S, Clayton K, Blaszczynski A. Prevalence of adolescent problem gambling, related harms and help-seeking behaviours among an Australian population. J Gambl Stud. 2010;26(2):189–204.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    Goh ECL, Ng V, Yeoh BSA. The family exclusion order as a harm-minimisation measure for casino gambling: the case of Singapore. International Gambling Studies. 2016;16(3):373–90.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    McCarthy S, Thomas SL, Bellringer ME, Cassidy R. Women and gambling-related harm: a narrative literature review and implications for research, policy, and practice. Harm Reduct J. 2019;16(1):18.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    Salonen AH, Alho H, Castren S. Attitudes towards gambling, gambling participation, and gambling-related harm: cross-sectional Finnish population studies in 2011 and 2015. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):122.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.↵
    Kolandai-Matchett K, Langham E, Bellringer M, Siitia PA-H. How gambling harms experienced by Pacific people in New Zealand amplify when they are culture-related. Asian journal of gambling issues and public health. 2017;7(1):5-.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    Wardle H, Bramley S, Norrie C, Manthorpe J. What do we know about gambling-related harm affecting migrants and migrant communities? A rapid review. Addict Behav. 2019;93:180–93.
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.↵
    Hing N, Breen H, Gordon A, Russell A. Gambling harms and gambling help-seeking amongst indigenous Australians. J Gambl Stud. 2014;30(3):737–55.
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.
    Samuelsson E, Sundqvist K, Binde P. Configurations of gambling change and harm: qualitative findings from the Swedish longitudinal gambling study (Swelogs). Addiction Research & Theory. 2018;26(6):514–24.
    OpenUrl
  64. 64.↵
    Yani-de-Soriano M, Javed U, Yousafzai S. Can an Industry Be Socially Responsible If Its Products Harm Consumers? The Case of Online Gambling. Journal of Business Ethics. 2012;110(4):481–97.
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    Fulton C. Secrets and secretive behaviours: Exploring the hidden through harmful gambling. Library & Information Science Research. 2019;41(2):151–7.
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.↵
    Tu D, Gray RJ, Walton DK. Household experience of gambling-related harm by socioeconomic deprivation in New Zealand: increases in inequality between 2008 and 2012. International Gambling Studies. 2014;14(2):330–44.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.↵
    Jeffrey L, Browne M, Rawat V, Langham E, Li E, Rockloff M. Til Debt Do Us Part: Comparing Gambling Harms Between Gamblers and Their Spouses. J Gambl Stud. 2019;35(3):1015–34.
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.↵
    Langham E, Russell AMT, Hing N, Gainsbury SM. Sense of Coherence and Gambling: Exploring the Relationship Between Sense of Coherence, Gambling Behaviour and Gambling-Related Harm. J Gambl Stud. 2017;33(2):661–84.
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.↵
    Binde P. Preventing and Responding to Gambling-Related Harm and Crime in the Workplace. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2016;33(3):247–65.
    OpenUrl
  70. 70.↵
    May-Chahal C, Humphreys L, Clifton A, Francis B, Reith G. Gambling Harm and Crime Careers. J Gambl Stud. 2017;33(1):65–84.
    OpenUrl
  71. 71.↵
    Anderson TL, Rempusheski VF, Leedy KN. Casino Gambling and the Family: Exploring the Connections and Identifying Consequences. Deviant Behavior. 2017;39(9):1109–19.
    OpenUrl
  72. 72.
    Plataforma SINC. “Four kinds of compulsive gamblers identified.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 15 October 2010. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101014083345.htm>.
  73. 73.
    Álvarez-Moya, E. M., Jiménez-Murcia, S., Aymamí, N., Gómez-Peña, M., Granero, R., Santamaría, J., Menchón, J. M., Fernández-Aranda, F. Subtyping Study of a Pathological Gamblers Sample. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 2010;55(8):498–506.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted November 12, 2019.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Is There a Health Inequality in Gambling Related Harms? A Systematic Review
J.N Raybould, M Larkin, R. J Tunney
medRxiv 19012104; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/19012104
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area